This Is How 99% Of Screenwriters Write A Story - Jill Chamberlain
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- BUY THE BOOK - THE NUTSHELL TECHNIQUE: Crack the Secret of Successful Screenwriting - amzn.to/2X3Vx5F
In this Film Courage video interview, Script Consultant/Author/Writer Jill Chamberlain on This Is How 99% Of Screenwriters Write A Story.
DOWNLOAD THE NUTSHELL TECHNIQUE FORMS
www.jillchambe...
Jill Chamberlain is the author of one of the highest rated screenwriting books on Amazon entitled The Nutshell Technique: Crack the Secret of Successful Screenwriting.
MORE VIDEOS WITH JILL CHAMBERLAIN
bit.ly/2lPYJ3i
CONNECT WITH JILL CHAMBERLAIN
www.jillchambe...
/ jillchamberlainauthor
/ jillchamberlain
MORE FROM FILM COURAGE ON SCREENWRITING:
filmcourage.com...
BECOME A FILM COURAGE MEMBER
/ @filmcourage
CONNECT WITH FILM COURAGE
www.FilmCourage...
#!/...
/ filmcourage
/ filmcourage
/ filmcourage
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
bit.ly/22M0Va2
SUBSCRIBE TO THE FILM COURAGE TH-cam CHANNEL
bit.ly/18DPN37
LISTEN TO THE FILM COURAGE PODCAST
/ filmcourage-com
PROMOTE YOUR MOVIE, WEBSERIES, OR PRODUCT ON FILM COURAGE
bit.ly/1nnJkgm
SUPPORT FILM COURAGE
/ filmcourage
Stuff we use:
BUY THE BACKDROP
amzn.to/2XvDQLN
BUY THE BACKGROUND STAND
amzn.to/2WXowU5
CAMERA - This is the camera we have used to film 90+% of our interviews (over 200 interviews and counting) It continues to be our workhorse - amzn.to/2u66V1J
LENS - Most people ask us what camera we use, no one ever asks about the lens which filmmakers always tell us is more important. This lens was a big investment for us and one we wish we could have made sooner. Started using this lens at the end of 2013 - amzn.to/2tbtmOq
AUDIO
Rode VideoMic Pro - The Rode mic helps us capture our backup audio. It also helps us sync up our audio in post amzn.to/2t1n2hx
Audio Recorder - If we had to do it all over again, this is probably the first item we would have bought - amzn.to/2tbFlM9
LIGHTS - Although we like to use as much natural light as we can, we often enhance the lighting with this small portable light. We have two of them and they have saved us a number of times - amzn.to/2u5UnHv
COMPUTER - Our favorite computer, we each have one and have used various models since 2010 - amzn.to/2t1M67Z
EDITING - We upgraded our editing suite this year and we’re glad we did! This has improved our workflow and the quality of our work. Having new software also helps when we have a problem, it’s easy to search and find a solution - goo.gl/56LnpM
*These are affiliate links, by using them you can help support this channel.
#screenwriting #screenwriting101 #writing
![Why 99% Of Stories Are Meaningless - Alan Watt [Founder of L.A. Writers' Lab]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/v4wkx8LBH_s/mqdefault.jpg)
To watch the full episode with Jill Chamberlain: th-cam.com/video/Wwh6P34MpLI/w-d-xo.html
Thank you Jill!
Meanwhile films like The Assistant come out and make everything she said mute.
Hello, I'm from Venezuela, I have high quality film projects, American style, can you help me? only original projects.. thanks
Yes it.s helping me!. I.m working on a story about a bunch of Catalan exiles in France back in 1939 .And that was a situation!. No matter how much melodrama love and tragedy and.... nazis were involved!. Thanks!!!
She seems like one of those teachers that you keep handing your work back to and she hands it back saying “You’re still missing the point”
What did she say that you disagree with?
Patali He didn’t say he disagreed with her
She's right, and if you can't tell, you shouldn't be writing. It'd say 99.999% of all the scripts have the very same thing that she said: this happens, then this happens, then this happens. It's totally bullshit writing. IT's not writing. IT's utter nonsense. Writing is about problem solving, and in any story, not only screenplays, but in anything, there are at least 10 major problems, ladder of problems, so that the character, when least trained, has to get trained, to solve these problems. Situations are not problems. They are "being there". Not solving problems.
@@defiverr4697 Correct. In short, let's take a simplistic story. A little boy wants to climb a tall tree to get an apple, a special apple, the only one like it on the tree. The situation would be written in the action lines. He's trying to get up the tree, he's failing to get up the tree, he skins his knee trying to get up the tree, etc...Now, the story, however, is him wanting to get that apple and win the day, right? So, how does he get that apple? He asks his father for a ladder, his father doesn't have a ladder. Conflict. He needs to find a way to get up the tree. He tries to get a job to save money for a ladder. The ladder is $49, but he's too young to work. Conflict, but he manages to get a job cutting lawn. So he solved one problem. Now his next journey is to save that money. But, mom and dad need money too because he and his family are poor. Conflict. He won't be able to get that ladder as quick as he'd like because he's helping his parents. That's another problem. Fall is coming, and those apples won't be on the tree for long, and so on, and so on...until he finds the resolution.
@@1973vanguard Exactly. A story, a movie, is as good as the problems the characters are experiencing, and in very very great movies, like T2, Titanic, Aliens, the problems are mixed with big action. Problems define story, and the character who's unable to at first solve these problems has to change to gain more skills, needed to solve these problems.
The Truman Show is another good example. Anyone could be plopped into the situation of being raised unknowingly on a television show. But Truman as a character is one who struggles with leaving his comfort zone, even though he wants to go out and explore, because of his fears. And in the end he makes the decision to go into the great unknown, away from the safety of his previous life, in spite of what may happen to him out there. And that's what makes it a story
Awesome example! Truman’s desire to explore is challenged by his intense personal fear of water and drowning from the traumatic loss of his father. Once he confronts that personal flaw, facing his fears, he can change as a person and complete that character arc. The most dramatic moment of the film is Truman on the boat in the sea during the storm, and while almost dying, as his “creator” nearly destroys him using the artificial storm, everyone engages in the drama to witness whether Truman successfully faces his flaw and fears. Such a good movie
So, character development is a story, problem solving is a situation.
Even good characters need tough problems to solve.
It's not always like that actually, but it's the best way to do it.
Check out Magnus Mills's book All Quiet on the Orient Express. It follows these rules, but the extrinsic obstacle is at first just to paint a gate.
Ferris Bueller's Day Off is situational while War Games is story telling. Both are problem solving movies. A story has a beginning, middle and end of an arc. A situational movie just ends. Let's say the movie is about a bank heist. A situational plot has the thieves riding into the sunset with the money for an ending. A story would be that they had 24 hours to save an orphanage in Mexico by robbing a bank in Texas.
Character development should be done by page five which in a well written screenplay is about five minutes into the story. The character should be clearly defined so we know their strengths, their weaknesses, their flaws etc because the STORY is the main characters journey of emotional change. If you can't clearly demonstrate who they are emotionally then you'll never demonstrate that they went through personal changes.
Clearly demonstrate who they are; demonstrate their routine; their "want" and then something/someone comes along with throws their whole "routine" into chaos (usually the antagonist or antagonistic force). The problem solving will usually fail at least once or twice (demonstrating that they need to change or have something to let go of before they can solve that problem) - hence the "emotional change" part.
Also any well written story is driven by the protagonists actions - not by what's happening to him or her. It has to be their actions that drive the story forward (this is where the problem solving comes in). It's also good to continuously raise the stakes so that this dramatic "want" becomes a dramatic "need" something they MUST accomplish (Marty MUST get his parents back together for example; the shark MUST be killed etc). And then add a "ticking time bomb" or a time constraint - they need to get it done within a specific time frame in order to add tension. Oh yeah... and a "point of no return" or what I call a "Lock In" can add tension and in fact I think is necessary. For example after Marty goes past 88 miles per hour; he's now stuck in 1955 - he's locked into the story; there's no turning back; no alternate solution - he HAS TO find Doc Brown.
These are just general guidelines though, nothing I've said above is necessarily "true". It's just one way to approach the craft of writing but ultimately you should follow your own heart, instincts and intellect. If it doesn't MOVE you then it probably won't move your audience or as they say "no tears in the writer = no tears in the reader".
1) The story needs to test the protagonist's flaw.
2 The protagonist must make the story happen.
SPOILER!!! - Just remember that in Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Indiana Jones wasn't needed for the plot to progress. The Nazis still would have found the Ark and all died on the island. Indy's sole contribution was then getting the Ark into the hands of the government, who locked it away, instead of studying its power.
@@TubenIt83 that makes no sense. The hero was needed for the plot until divine intervention happened. But divine intervention itself is something that makes no sense since God could have created the world right, in the first place -- in which case no stories would exist. I think divine intervention was the final "shit got serious" and the payoff that the story needed, and your complaint makes no sense because... even Indiana Jones is insignificant next to god. You know, a story is still in place even if the protagonist does not achieve what he wanted. In the end we are just over-analyzing an adventure flick... There's no part of it that works great because of its logic. It's actually a wonder of an incredibly fun movie that never makes any sense -- like its model, the 007 flicks.
@@nandoflorestan true
@@TubenIt83 Big Bang Theory broke my heart when it explained this. Lol. It was a sad day.....
@@nandoflorestan "Create the world right" Free will allows for the possibility sin. If the world was "created right," then there would be no point to humans since we'd be (mindless) robots. The world was created right. Everything that you just said made zero sense.
Calling the flaw "something you can blame the character for" is exactly what I needed to hear that understand the concept. Thanks Jill!
This helps me to write my grand opus- Fat Tootsie 2:electric boogaloo. I am already writing my acceptance speech for the inevitable awards that are to follow
I'm already penning Fat Tootsie 3: Tokyo Drift. Where he becomes a fat woman with a siamese twin that wants to be a rocket scientist but to pay for school they have to race cars against Vin Diesel who is also in disguise as a fat woman, but also bald.
You both inspired me to write Fat Tootsie Episode 4: An Old Hope. It's where the main character searches for who he is and why his father won't accept him for how fat he is, even on his death bed; it's something he's wondered about for many years while zooming through the galaxies.
I look forward to the fourth award that I'll win for this amazing series.
Holy shit we've got some serious franchise potential here guys. Not only are we gonna sweep the awards and box office with these masterpieces in progress but the merchandise potential is thru the roof. I'm talking fat tootsie action figures, happy meal tie ins, licensed video games, plushies, board games, play sets, coffee mugs, t-shirts and even an animated series to introduce a younger audience to fat tootsie. Sky's the limit here, I'll call my cousin Ira he can make things happen.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
I'm gonna skip ahead and start working on Fat Tootsie X: No USB's Allowed. Tootsie will go on a journey throughout east Asia in order to find the last USB port in a dying market only to find out that Apple has been buying up all the USB ports to hoard in their secret underground base.
It's so funny how the interviewer tries to bring up "A star is born" as an example, and it's exactly the kind of movie where none of the characters have any actual arc or effect on the events, so Jill just moves on :D
Jill acts as a teacher, and it´s great. More than an interview this has been like seeing from a hole some "learning lessons" between master and student.
The WHOLE POINT of ‘a star is born’ is the arc of the uprising star and the partner that can’t Handle it, so yeah it actually does work. (Yes im a screenwriter)
@@Nazaba09 Well, I, as a screewriter don't agree with you :) There is definitely an *assumed* arc. We all know the structure and trajectory of the plot by the setup, but that does not equal a well executed story arc in my book. To me it felt like the movie was like "You all know how this goes" and then never bothered to tell us the actual story, rather just show us scenes of it.
JonesAndYou it’s ironic because your statement goes against most criticisms of the movie. Of course it was critically acclaimed but the ONE problem critics had with it, was that the middle dragged on too long. It’s almost like the critics WANTED the movie to have the approach of ‘you know how this goes’
But nope, we had to suffer through it anyway. 😂
@@Nazaba09 Well, I'm not sure I am communicating myself clearly now because that exactly is my critisism also :D The middle part of the movie drags on because nothing is happening to the characters. They just exist in the middle of all of these events without either changing as people or being significant catalysts for the events. This is not a problem if the event rail-road is strong and dynamic enough so that the plot we all can see a mile away is served to us in a fun way. In this movie it was just boring and banal to me because the character reactions and emotional weight of their situation was the device the movie was built upon, and at least for me it did not connect. But I'm glad you enjoyed it and that it speaks to you, not every work of art is made for everyone! :)
Had been listening to a screenwriting podcast this spring - a couple of Brit guys - their take is that these screenplay writing gurus and their formula books work best for analyzing already completed works that are successful, but have their limitations when it comes to a writer in the process of trying to be truly creative in narrative storytelling.
Exactly.. you can never be creative, if you structure and instructions to follow.. going wild has risks and also surprise outcomes..
Respectfully disagree. I got Jill's book and ended up digging up and repairing all the main pieces of a novel I've been plotting -- completely based on what she explains in her book. I was able to figure out why my "situation" and "events" were not gelling. This book changed my way of building the story 180 degrees.
What’s the podcast called?
I just added a new post on the Chamberlain Video that references your reply. Appreciate your comment. You have a good understanding of creativity.
Just added a new post on the Jill Chamberlain video that addresses your reply (in a positive manner). Best of luck with your novel.
Great insight, especially the part of the the protagonist should be contributing to the problem.
Definitely will take another look at my script:)
Check out episode 403 of the Scriptnotes podcast. Craig Mazin goes in depth wrt a protagonist’s false belief (the flaw) being at odds with a film’s thematic thesis and creating the journey for that character to change and embrace a new belief. It’s very much a continuation of the ideas presented here.
@@MarcosElMalo2 I appreciate this, and I'll definitely listen!! Thanks.
Marci Urling Marci Urling It’s a good podcast not just on screenwriting, but also the business of screenwriting. Mazin is part of WGA leadership, and on a different episode he explained the agency strike pretty well.
Episode 403 was solo; usually it’s him and John August, whom you might know.
I think the most important thing I got from 403 was that plot structure arises from the character of the protagonist, which mirrors what Chamberlain is talking about here (situation vs story). Anyway, this Film Courage video and that podcast episode are jumpstarting me on something I’ve been wanting to do as well as something I’m currently writing.
Best of luck on your current script! Hit me up if you need a reader.
@@MarcosElMalo2 Sounds good!
I would even say that the character is the problem.
Watching this makes me go back to everything I've ever written. Turns out I'm one of the 99% of writers creating a just a situation and not actually a story.
This has been a really helpful experience. Thanks
Can you tell me more ? What exactly did you change in your story ? And why ?
One of the best examples of the plot set up to “cure” the character is Ground Hog Day.
Yaa
Definitely will check this out
It's more about Success than curing anybody. Caddyshack, every Griswald family vacation.. A movie where people fail at the end never sells dvds, never recommended, etc..
Groundhog Day is one of my favorite movies. Still.
yep!!!!!
This channel is absurdly resourceful and delivers so much detailed information about relevant issues/factors in the writing process and the industry itself that I genuinely feel like someone ripped these videos from a paid program and streamed them on TH-cam. Thank you for all of the content. This was very helpful!
Hi Dre, that is an outstanding compliment. Thank you. Love to see you finding such value here. Our best to you as you move forward with your own creative work.
In summary: A story changes an integral part of the character as a result of a choice they've made. A situation doesn't change them nor was it a choice.
Story forces a character to break down a wall, for which the character has got to get a hold of certain tools first, learn how to use them, then get to work and face the challenges that come with it. In the best case scenario, that character's flaw would be that they refuse to get their hands dirty and disregard this type of work, think better of themselves for e.g. being the CEO of a company and not 'hammering about in the dirt'.
It would be a situation if all the character had to do was to get a nearby latter and climb it to get over the wall.
A story is also character driven. The character WANTS to get over the wall but doesn't have to. If they are forced to get over the wall: Situation. If they choose to get over (or through) the wall and all their upcoming challenges are a result of that choice: Story.
It works!!! If you want the waif of your story to trail long after your screenplay is read, hire a master. I read and applied the formula in Jill Chamberlain’s book, The Nutshell Technique, and then I hired her. A script consultation with Jill is like a session with a master perfumer. Her notes on my structure alone, elevated the entire fragrance of my story. (“A successful perfume is one in which the formula is as beautiful as the fragrance….” Francois Demachy.) Jill sniffed out and distinguished the aromatic moments to keep, and the distilling ones to eliminate. Jill infused my screenplay’s bouquet, helping me take it from decent, to full-bodied and rich with conflict. Thank you, Film Courage and Jill Chamberlain!
The phrase 'Fat Tootsie' has been uttered so many times now that I feel like I've seen that film.
What this boils down to is the difference between story and plot, as described by E.M. Forster in "Aspects of the Novel." (1927)
A story is "the king died, and then the queen died."
A plot is "the king died, and then the queen died of grief."
Action, reaction. Cause, effect. Tie those scenes together and you have
Write a story you like first, play with theories and changes later. If you're worried about what's going to sell, know one knows. If you know you've got something but it needs some work and you want a good discerning pair of eyes on it, that could be the time for some script theory folks to take a looksee - - - but I'd rather get it to someone who has written a screenplay I truly love than an academic. "Good stories" cannot simply be analysed by the left brain. ("Does it contain this element? Does it do this on this page? Ism ism this?") Good stories activate the heart, and there's no arguing when they do.
I am supporting a campaign called "Walk For Story" it's focused on helping gifted women writers who want to make positive social change through storytelling through full or partial scholarships. You should take a look at it fundly.com/walk-for-story
I remember once in Lincoln Plaza hearing someone who was probably a producer saying into his phone, "I don't care how good the writing is. What I'm looking for is how close it follows the model of Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces." The guy doesn't get that that book was supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive, just like people who cling to Aristotle's unities of time, space, and action. Aristotle's Poetics was first published in English in 1608. By 1610, William Shakespeare wrote The Winter's Tale, which some scholars have argued is Shakespeare making fun of those who take Aristotle prescriptively.
Agreed but I think what is academic saying that you NEED both. A good story or having heart or an amazing idea dental to be an amazing movie isn't enough. You're hopefully going to create something you love anyway so might as well focus on the technicalities of a good script.
Afterall, story is the second most important part of a films objective.
I am working on a novel, rather than a screenplay, but this is great for me because Story is critical, regardless of the form it takes. Great instruction.
So, put a character with a certain bias in a specific situation that challenges that bias.
Ms. Chamberlain is correct in all of this. I've owned a book formatting and proofreading company for several years. The vast majority of the fiction I get is from self-published people and most of the nonfiction is from very small publishers often doing POD books. Some of the nonfiction is not bad, but probably 90% or more of the fiction I get to work on is so poor, it's just a meandering mess with no goal in sight for any of the characters. It's very obvious that most people who try to write a fictional story just sit down and write anything that comes into their heads. I'm not saying you need an outline (though it helps tremendously most of the time), but before you start writing, you should already have the end in sight. You need a goal for your main character whether it's saving a town from a bursting dam, finding the fountain of youth, or settling the first colony on Ganymede. Then you need to decide on a character type to achieve that goal. (Man, woman, young, old, job type etc.) Once you have a goal and a main character, then you have the basis for writing a story. Yes, the journey may end up being more important than the destination, but you need to know where you're going before you can start. It also helps to have a goal for a secondary character so you can create a good subplot as well. Subplots help maintain the reader's interest. You may in fact have three or four. Just trying to be helpful.
Man, people in these comments are getting so bent out of shape, yet can't say what they actually disagree with.
@Gary Nelson I half-disagree. No matter how much joy and inspiration I have in an idea, it will die if I don't have its story plotted out in advance of writing as to how the characters will grow and develop as they strive to accomplish their goal because I won't know where they're going otherwise. Sometimes, however, my characters take the reins of the story away from me and go in a direction I didn't plan for or expect and I let them because it feels natural to the characters I've written.
This woman is brilliant! Before watching this, I had just read a friend's script and this is EXACTLY what the prob was.
I just can't help but laugh when I see all those script consultants taking themselves so serious when they pretend to deliver or discover such a unique approach! 😂 if you're reasonable you really have a hard time not shaking your head to this. What she is describing is essentially what others call the necessity of the inner journey. I'm not hating on her in particular. She's just trying to make a living by doing what she loves, but all these screenlay consultants have one thing in common. They haven't written screenplays that were actually made and became a huge success by themselves. And they all basically say the same in different words. If you look behind it, most of it is not much different from what Aristotle already said. All these approaches are legit but they don't delivee any new insight really, they just portray it in different ways. And the thing is that even by following all these formulas and rules, that doesn't garantee you a great screenplay or movie! Many bad movies are written considering and applying tjese formulas and still suck or don't succeed. That's why cinema and movie making is ART and great art has no formulas! There's more to it, that' why it's art. It's the same as music. You may be the best music theorist but there's no formula to produce a hit.
Good for all these screenplay consultants and gurus, if they can make a living out of it but the delusion in them is what really strikes me.
You read my thoughts Bro! And they are always selling some book with their 'magic recipe' for success that is just SO basic. But by far the most frustrating thing is that I pick up popular books every day that are 'bestsellers' translated into a dozen languages, yet none of these super-basic rules seem to apply. Then, at the other end of the scale, high literature simply does not have to adhere to any of these principles. I guess screenwriting and writing - and, like you say ART - are very different worlds...
All that might be basic, but the problem is, people actually DO need help applying that to their scripts. Basic and easy are not the same thing. Then all of us would be great writers. Besides, you have no idea what this woman, or any other consultant has written or not. Just because it wasn't made doesn't mean they haven't sold any, or doctored scripts that were made (this happens, ALL the time). Do you have any idea the statistics on films being made? There are writers out there who own houses on scripts that they've written that have not yet been, nor probably ever will be made. That's how the industry works.
Did you write any movie? Cuz if not, then criticizing her makes you look a bit stupid IMO.
Spending all your time watching these videos as opposed to writing is obviously a mistake. But I think these videos (and consultants in general) have a place and can be very helpful.
To me, it’s not much different than how we learn in school. In school, we learn about writing YEAR AFTER YEAR, essentially hearing the same advice portrayed in different ways by different teachers. It’s all mostly useful to some degree, as long as you also have enough time reserved to actually work on the craft.
I’m glad people have their own interpretations of these types of story elements. Sometimes you don’t get something until you hear a different explanation of it.
I highly recommend the book "Inside Story: The Power of the Transformational Arc" by Dara Marks. One of the best Screenwriting book ever published.
Honest to God I'm buying it right now
Purchased.
@@LouStoriale How was the book?
One of the most helful things for a screenwriter out there. Dara is brilliant. People put so much emphasis on the structure, that they forget the theme is the thing.
I admit. I had a hard time understanding "Fat Tootsie." But... I got it. She's talking about personal growth for the character. It's a rare thing. Love it.
This ties in with the whole Hero’s Journey thing. Your character has to have a flaw that they overcome in order for it to be a story. Great insight, excellent example.
She's obviously never seen 'IP Man' . A Morally flawless character who's virtually unbeatable thrown into a situation where his individual strength doesn't actively help him solve the story's problem, (I believe Japanese occupation of his village). Narrative structure doesn't have to be a ridged as she makes it appear to be, otherwise stories of helplessness through existential threats would be non existent.
bbr64 bbr64 it also doesn’t help Nolan Batman trilogy, maybe on the third, but the the first two not one bit.
The Hero's Journey is a very tired and predictable formula these days. It panders to the majority, sure. You have your A New Hope which is an amazing example of the formula--but it is SO tired. The Hero with a Thousand Faces was written in 49 and it is definitely showing it's age.
Caitlin You are right. The tropes have been seen a thousand times. I can’t think of any that did it better than A New Hope 🤔 ...
Could The Hero’s Journey be done in a way that is fresh and invigorated?
I think it can, but it needs one hell of a writer, and production & post where it wasn’t mucked up.
If someone told me that non-linear storytelling is the most efficient route to subverting the tiredness, I’d trust that opinion~ but regardless, lazy screenwriting will always produce tired work, will it not?
A genius is needed to revamp Campbell’s structure, for it is still the most attractive house on the block despite its weathering.
@@Evanderj I agree 10000%. We have some hero's return stories that are noteworthy. Mad Max Fury Road. Interstellar (Christopher Nolan really does amazing hero returns). I think The Hero's Journey did well for the era it was most popular. From pulp fiction up until maybe early 2000s. Things are changing. The average viewer wants something more dynamic. Which is asking a lot considering the formula is already pretty complicated.
I told someone that one of the best TV hero's journeys is Starz's Spartacus (season 1). There is no better representation of the Belly of the Whale than episode 6 of that series. It goes to show that the elements will always be important--but elevating it is even more so.
I don't even write or have seen the film but even I knew what difference was before she finished.
Deep character leads to deep and compelling story.
The story is about the character, not just something that happens to them.
you need a deep plot that tells a good story and reveals interesting characters.
You guys are easily fooled. Should we conclude then that E. T. is a situation, not a story, because the protagonist is an average kid with very few friends who could just as well be the neighbor? I mean, the trick she describes in the interview is GREAT if you can pull it off, but it must by no means be essential to a story.
Writing is my passion the ONE thing I've ever thought I was any good at, and watching things like this really keep me going and believing I've chosen the right career. I'm not trying to brag, writing is the only thing I would ever even attempt to brag about but still. It's just, everytime I hear things like this, that they say a lot of people get certain things wrong never seem to be things I have any trouble with. According to the many similar videos I've seen I seem to naturally be able to write a well rounded story that has a good plot good characters and good flow throughout and yes things tie together and no another character wouldn't fit into them. I have no idea how I know how to do that and as I said I'm not saying this to brag but rather just thank people for making videos like this because it gives me hope and reassurance I'm on the right track and that I shouldn't let others in my life convince me otherwise, they don't know or understand that I really can write and that someday I really will make a name for myself. Watching these validates my life and lets me know I haven't been wasting it, so thank you.
The problem I have is that from other successful writers, we're told to make the character suffer. "Imagine your character is stuck in a tree and people are throwing rocks at him/her. He/she must find a way down if they want to succeed." This is the format we're taught. She has a great point of what the difference is between the two, but most writers are taught this. I personally think situations like Get Out sell and stories like Forrest Gump live on. I think in a money hungry business like Hollywood, it would behoove the writer to write what sells and then once their foot is in the door, they can write whatever they want.
An interesting insight with considerable merit. But she glossed over the more important point she touched on early in the video -- the one page outline or chart of your story. In my experience as an editor, the vast majority of amateur writers simply don't know where they are going from the first. They wing it and hope it ends up somewhere. Ms. Chamberlain speaks of a central flaw that is tested. Others talk about a series of conflicts leading to a dramatic conclusion that illustrates the central theme. Others speak of cause and effect leading inexorably to a thematic denouement. However you wish to think of story, knowing where you're going is vital. Putting down the mechanics or structure of the story on a piece of paper first and working out the flaw, the conflict, the resolution is what pros do first. And it makes the writing itself far more efficient and directed.
@@cesarhernandez7108 Yeah but that's why he's generally panned for having terrible endings to his stories. Lots a great ideas along the way but no end goal in mind
Yes. She makes some very valid points. Situation and story differences. And a flaw which makes the character who he or she is and how her actions point to this flaw ,thus developing the story . A good teacher.
She’s completely wrong in her analysis of Tootsie. Hoffman’s character is not presented as lacking respect for women. The party simply shows he is unsuccessful with women, but using the same pickup line is not lack of respect, it’s lack of ability.
He talks to an attractive woman and asks her if she might want to do something after the party, but he later sees her leaving the party with a much better looking guy.
It is also an important part of the scene that it is a his birthday and Bill Murray’s character put together the surprise party for him, but he hardly knows anybody at his own birthday party. He actually says so. Murray’s character is the one with all the friends and acquaintances.
THAT is an important piece of information the writer is conveying in that scene. Not that he lacks respect for women. I doubt that notion was in any way part of the writer’s intent.
And he NEVER intended to sleep with Terri Garr’s character. She walked in on him in her bedroom in his underpants because he was TRYING ON HER DRESSES.
In order to cover and hide what he was REALLY doing, he pretends to be in his underpants because he wants her and they sleep together.
So, of course he freaks out afterwards. He was in that situation only because he almost got caught being, or working on being Tootsie.
In fact, he is very helpful to Garr’s character and helps her prepare for the soap opera audition. The fact is that she is not a good actor and she whines and complains and says she is giving up acting and, yet, Hoffman’s character doesn’t give up on her and tries to help.
And keep in mind that the part in the soap opera that he won by being Tootsie was the same part that Garr’s character was trying to land, so even MORE reason he had to avoid revealing his secret to her.
And based on this woman’s analysis, one could make “Fat Tootsie” in which Hoffman’s character looked down on fat people, but after living as a fat guy, changed his attitude.
It would literally be the same movie according to her analysis of the character’s “flaw.”
But lack of respect for women was not that character’s flaw. That conclusion is not supported by the movie.
Maybe you could say that he was never “himself” with women he was interested in, but that being around Jessica Lange’s character when she thought he was a woman allowed him to relax and be himself rather than trying to use “lines.”
But again, that arc is not about him respecting women, it is about him learning how to be natural and himself with women that he is attracted to.
I feel like what you're saying is true, but it's also an alternative view of the same thing as disrespecting women, another way of looking at the situation. Ignorance of women and of how to approach women goes hand-in-hand with disrespect, with each informing (or mis-informing, maybe) the other. Dissing women means that men don't get to know them, which makes it more difficult to approach them, which increases disrespect, and so on. Alternatively, start with not knowing much about women, finding it difficult to approach them, etc.
Dorsey's character maybe isn't a total red-pill, MGTOW, Pick-Up Artist doofus as we know them today, but there's a touch of that about his approach. He's looking for the secret formula, the key that will unlock any woman. In Hollywood fashion, he's not totally irredeemable, though, because if he was, that wouldn't be his story, just a situation.
So he infiltrates the world of women and sees what he looks like from the other side through seeing other men doing what he was trying to do and what it looks like to women. And that leads to understanding, which leads to character growth, which makes the story.
A
A+ for completely missing the point. An analysis of her misreading of Tootsie is besides the point she was making which is that writers are writing situations, not stories.
@@FTLNewsFeed And in order to demonstrate her assertion, she used Tootsie as an example, but because her interpretation of Tootsie is flawed, so is her attempt to rely upon it to demonstrate her claim that "most writers are writng 'Fat Tootsie.'" So, her analysis of Tootsie is entirely relevant.
Not to mention the issue of her credibility as someone giving advice on writing for movies. If her interpretation of a film she holds out as an example is flawed, then why should I give any weight to her opinion on writing? Why should I have any confidence in her advice? Maybe she is completely wrong.
I mean, she doesn't appear to have any film writing credits of her own. She is one of these people who wrote a book about how to write screenplays, yet she has no screenplay credits for any film that I can find except a couple of "shorts" she also directed in 2001 for which she is further credited as the editor and as an actress, so my guess is these are short films she made herself.
www.imdb.com/name/nm0150172/
I'm not saying someone has to have written screenplays that have actually been produced as major feature films in order to have something useful to say about writing, but it sure would help. I'm always skeptical of these "experts" on "how to write scripts for film" who have somehow not been able to sell any script that they wrote. And her flawed interpretation of Tootsie further increases my skepticism about whether it makes sense to listen to her opinions at all.
If you want screenwriting advice from someone who has no screenplay credits, I'd be happy to oblige. I have no screen credits either, so I guess I am equally as qualified as Chamberlain.
I agree with you, if anything Hoffman character flaw is that he is very manipulative, which serves him well in convincing everyone he is a woman and having Lange confide in him about stuff. But his ability to dupe everyone had to blow up on him eventually. It has been a long time since I've seen this film, but I found her analysis very strange. A situation IS a story so long as it is drawn out thru character development so we understand why the conflict continues thus creating rising conflict that leads to a climax. Pretty basic stuff really.
I like the part about not making your character a victim. Many stories start with the protagonist being victimized by the antagonist in some way.
But at the end, the protagonist seeks out the final fight on their own. They want the showdown, however it ends for them.
Simple yet, brilliant insight.
Does this help you with the story you are writing now?
i think a good way to make people understand how to make your protagonist less of a victim, is to get them to realise the difference between an active and reactive protagonist. do you have any videos describing the difference. if not could you make one please.
This is some great advice that I didn't know I needed. My stories never feel as compelling as I want them to be, and I feel like this is one of the mistakes I'm making.
Yes, actually. Thank-you very much.
Cheers!
If you make adjustments to your story / character, would be interested to hear how much difference it made.
I wasn't so sure about the conversation even half way through, but it won me over. Great insight here, thanks!
Depends on the type of story. Take Spirited Away for example. She has two simple character moments: she refuses the gold and she decides to go to to Yubaba's sister. And two character traits melded into a simple arc: she goes from being scared and bratty to courageous and hard working. Chihiro is not an active protagonist for most of the movie.
Yes, but that s a completely diferent way of telling things. Miyazaki comes from another tradition and also has his own kind of public.
Same for Big Lebowski.
Interesting. I have to go back and watch it again, but what you say here does ring true. Cheers from Tokyo (Miyazaki-sama is my neighbor :)
Chihiro makes more choices than that, though.
The medicine from the River Spirit an important plot device that must be used actively, and it is an element of the story she has 100% control of. In a dream, it is shown that she intends to use the medicine to break the spell on her parents.
She chooses to use it on Haku and Noh Face, her ally and her enemy, sacrificing a solution to her original goal in order to help people who have been poisoned (in a literal/figurative sense).
Actually most arthouse films don't follow what she is saying. They are based more on experiences and reactions and don't usually have an arc or satisfying conclusions.
I thought, does this really need to be 12 and a half minutes long? Then I watched it and now could listen to her all day. So insightful.
This is for abhi ram, Melanie Moore,, and Ash's Allotment... Starting with Melanie... You confirmed my doubts (after hitting the comment button) about about the clarity of my original post. Actually I found Jill Chamberlain a compelling voice on story building when writing screenplays. And at some point will get a copy of her book. Your positive testimony confirmed my suspicions about the value of her advice.
I've read Truby. Found William Goldman's Adventures in the Screen Trade narrative absorbing, Then there's these: You Tube's Lessons from the Screenplay (esp the Gone Girl one) extremely insightful, and Nerdwriter's Interstellar essay (again on TH-cam) same thing, five/5 stars.
For what I'm doing... drawing from a multiplicity of sources works most effectively. But that's an individualistic concern. All writers/creators are different. What works for one, might not be successful for another and that's a good thing, otherwise there'd end up being a ubiquity of regression towards the mean literary production. What I liked especially about the two podcast guys was that they take an analysis approach to studying/dissecting successful screenplays, applying different formulas (such as Chamberlain's) to screenplays for films in distribution. Up to the point where I was last spring in listening to their shows was that they had four screenplay writing technique authors they were using to analyze/breakdown screenplays with (who the authors were are in my notes somewhere). I really found this type of all encompassing approach to their discussions refreshing.
Worth checking out starting with episode one...
DRAFT ZERO Working out what makes screenplays work. Chas and Stu (from Australia, they're not Brits my bad)
Link: draft-zero.com/.
Here's the two youtube links...
Lessons from the Screenplay - Gone Girl th-cam.com/video/CF3lFPW4E1o/w-d-xo.html
Nerdwriter - Interstellar When Spectacle Eclipses Story th-cam.com/video/3fQ5wOSLPvI/w-d-xo.html...
THOMAS SEABOLT many thanks
loved the initial '99% are writing situations. great explanation ! Jill Chamberlain is awesome ! cheers from Rio
insightful...the choices a character makes when put in a situation have everything to do with their flaws. the choices they make, make the story...
One of the most insightful screenwriting teachings I have ever read or viewed. Jill Chamberlain explains everything so simply, but so perfectly.
Write your script. Let it flow organically. Keep writing.
I have clicked a lot of videos from this channel all I could say is I feel like I learn more from reading the comments here than the video itself.
Alain, great to see the community here providing you value.
Man, when she was talking about Tootsie, I kept thinking about Mrs. Doubtfire. I would've answered her query completely wrong.
God! This YT channel is pure gold!
Thanks Miguel, we appreciate your support!
This solved something I was struggling with in my script. Thank you!!
This really helped me as well with my script.
Absolutely genius: A flaw is something you can blame the character for!
I tend to go against the grain. Your story doesn't have to be about your protagonist having a pre-determined goal, and about his or her journey trying to achieve that goal. It just as well may be about a goal reached by the hero over a period of self-discovery, during which the protagonist finds out what he or she really longs for. The reason many good stories don't get told on screen isn't that they're bad, it's that they're reaching the wrong people at the wrong time and that making that Superhero do-over will almost certainly pay the studio more than investing in a great story written by an unknown noobie writer.
i agree.
falling down
This helps so much! Reading her book as well. She makes this so clear. Excellent teacher!
because of people like this we're devoid of more people like tarantino, paul thomas anderson, the coen brothers, david lynch etc
Thank you! According to this lady, the probably best movie ever made, 2001, is a situation, not a story.
To me, the reason why some people in the comments are not taking her seriously is because she went with giving examples before actually saying the meaning behind her approach so she could make the interviewer figure it out. As a teacher myself, I usually do this the other way around but it still works. In short, she said the sequence of events in a story (external conflict) should be tailored specifically to a character's desire, misbelief and fear (internal conflict) so you just don't have a situation but also a story.
She's referring to 99% of writers who woke up one day and tried writing a screenplay, then spent 200 - 1000 dollars for a script doctor to help them out with a 4 - 15 page coverage.
When I started out writing my first screenplay, (my baby if you would), I knew before writing anything what my story was about, and perfectly visually seen my beginning, middle and exactly how I wanted to end it. I had previously wrote a backstory for each of my characters.
This first draft was only 60 pages in length and I wanted to write it to 120 because when I go to the movies, I appreciate a lengthy movie, that is entertaining. And I am blessed with endless notions. Today producers and directors prefer shorter scripts with more blank pages.
I remember entering that script in monthly Screenplay Contests. The script doctor or script analyst loved my screenplay. It was almost perfect, but most of all it told a story and will be an excellent time at the theater.
This is the most convoluted way of just saying: the protagonist needs to have a journey.... or there needs to be a message to the journey of the lead character.
This was fabulous, also coulda been 4 min instead of 12
Like features that could have been short films? haha
She was exceptionally clear and delightfully concise. Kudos to her!
so, 99% of screenwriters (she's known) aren't storytellers.
good news for those who merely know the basics, I guess
and it sorta helps if you actually have something worth expressing -- besides ambition for a paycheck.
So helpful. I write, but not professionally. I have been stuck in just the trap she spoke of. "Victims of circumstance" has been a reliable, tried and true fallback position because it is of definite familiarity for the reader. "Familiarity" does not a protagonist make, though. For us to root for this imaginary person we must connect with more than just their plight, but with their heart, their mind and even their shortcomings.
Did she just write "Shallow Hal"? 😂
no. Do you remember Tootsie or Shallow Hal?
In just over 12 minutes, I learnt a lot. A very important lesson. Thank you.
Her "Fat Tootsie" example is a very long ridiculous hypothetical way to say something very simple. As I am watching, I'm thinking... "99% of screenwriters are writing stories where the protagonist doesn't have a flaw that needs to change from the beginning to the end?" Really? 99%?" This seems like a very unfounded assumption.
I guess if she says 99% of screenwriters need help, it is a good way to sell them books discussing super basic writing advice.
Agreed. Though to be fair some writers give their characters flaw that dont speak to the story at all. Then the flaw becomes almost like a quirk. Flaws done right propel a story ineveitably. So id take your point and add that the flaw chosen has to be the crux of that characters story
It does seem like an exaggeration, but I think you missed the point she's making. It's not about whether the writer has the hero overcoming the flaw or not, it's about having a flaw that is TESTED by the story, and having the tests primarily come as a result of the hero's own actions or decisions.
It would be easy to follow a lot of screenwriting formulas and insert cool obstacles that become episodic and repetitive and a flaw that gets resolved without them being deeply CONNECTED - which is clearly what happens when writers try to imitate something they've seen without thinking about why it worked as a story.
DribbleFunk Well said
I'm an aspiring screenwriter. This was very educational for me! I'll make sure I keep this in mind. Thank you so much for this video!
if you turn on the captions, it says "chauvinistic" every time the lady said *sexist* . what's wrong with the word sexist and why change it?
Then turn off the captions. Done.
@@MrMarcJackson
dude, the captions literally change what she said. it's like mild censorship, and you're like "jUsT pReTeNd ThEy DiDn'T"
Maggy Frog I noticed this as well. Just TH-cam flexing their censorship muscles. Only a matter of time until they start changing the spoken language as well in different content
women can't be sexist in a leftist transgender utopia
TH-cam thinks negative-sounding gender-neutral words are doubleplusungood
This was a very insightful video, Jill's perspective regarding "situation" storytelling is familiar to me. When it comes to writing, some people work better building a series of situations, that eventually form an event / story. Essentially it may boil down to individual preferences, however if the end result is achieved (i.e. an emotional, thought-provoking / satisfying journey) then that's also a good thing.
this was brilliant
Getting addicted to your videos, Jill. Can't wait to apply your advice!
Why she avoided A Star is Born? It's been remade several times, it should be a good example, what if you trade some character(s) with, say, Singing in the Rain, how would that turn out? If her concept of a flawed script is so solid why not use a different movie that the one she likes...?
Agreed... This particular interviewee didnt convince me as a reliable consultant. She speaks a fair bit about not being the 99% whilst giving platitudes the 99% has already heard over and over.
because she can't do it on the fly :P
@@demitrisalloum5131 Fair enough, still, when was the last time you saw Tootsie? I remember that the protagonist was kind of a jerk and that he learned his leason in the end but by now I had completely forgotten about him using the same pick up line with several girls. A more contemporary example could be Total Recall; in the original there was a need for the character to have his mind erased, the resistance leader was a telepath, big issue, yet the people who worked the remake scrapped that completely leaving no need whatsoever for Quade to erase his mind. Fat Toosie reminds me of The Naughty Professor; I'm sort of partial to Stella Stevens and stuff so I prefer the original but I have nothing against the remake, it worked well enough to justify a sequel, so you should be able to make fat Toosie work.
On hindsight, maybe it's because there is no failed remake of Tootsie that this example is not that good, a more relatable example would be Schumacher's Batman & Robin where they removed the angst on Batman, a key element of the character (and Bane's strategic mind, his more menacing aspect) or the out of character Superman as presented by Zack Snyder's objectivism. But only one of those count as a remake so I propose Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes where the god damned humans talk. They. Talk. And the apes speak in fear about the human ingenuity. In fear. In the original adaptation the humans have de-evolved, they are dumb. So, why is it that the apes rule the planet again?
I want to enjoy this movie but it doesn't make it easy...
I would put it down to her having already used it as an example other times. She says in the video that it's her favourite example.
You can't analyze a movie on the fly. You have to figure it out. What she says is correct. A story is about your protagonist. Not about a situation. Movies that don't get that put you to sleep. You can't root for your protagonist if they have no personal stakes in the story. I get why she uses Tootsie. The "fat tootsie" allusion is perfect.
a different and very interesting approach to finding fault when creating characters
Yesh finally someone putting it in words what i felt about joker and a 100 other movies. They just make the character a victim of circumstance(s). That makes for a bad story overall.
I'm a beginning screen writer, and you are absolutely marvialous. Wow, you insightfulness is so very "now," so very, "change it now" - get it right at the very beginning. Thank you sooooo much Jill. :o)
Best of luck on your screenwriting journey Joseph!
Love RAW conversations like this..nothing but the truth 💯
Wow. I'm dating my age but I remember Tootsie in the movie theater. Okay, I WAS a child when I saw it. Viewing your video, Jill Chamberlain, helps me appreciate my Screenwriting professors! Go, Cal State University, Northridge!!! Every Single Script must fall into a Five-Word-Phrase...A PERSON WITH A PROBLEM! It does not matter if it's a comedy, drama, sci-fi, etc. Every single scene from beginning to end must work towards that goal! You can have an absolutely beautiful scene, HOWEVER, IF it does not work towards your protagonist reaching his/her goal then it needs to be tossed out! UGH, but it's true!!! Say you have a billion dollars and you're going to make your own film, distribute it, etc. IF you do not keep your audiences' attention, regardless of the key actors, the audience will be bored and never promote your movie. They may blast it. This is a key point. May every writer get this!!! Yes! The Problem has to be so drastic and the biggest challenge of the protagonist's life BUT BELIEVABLE FOR THAT CHARACTER'S UNIVERSE!
This is beautiful! I started writing a few years ago and this helps my by leaps and bounds. Thank you!
i'd disagree with this one, i honestly prefer well thought out and executed "situations" to a boring one with character flaws and shit. its great advice but saying that a story isnt a story unless a character has a "flaw" is just something i strongly don't believe in.
The key about characters in film is the Evolution of a character. That is why flaws is important. That is what makes Batman more interesting than Superman.
During The story The character deals with their flaws, learn from them or just never learn. But history has shown that characters with no flaws make no good film.
@@insaniacproductions5775yes thats true but it mostly shines through and works very well when the "situations" or rather plot is innovative and interesting. if not the movie will most likely be more boring that the one with great situation but no character flaw
Insaniac Productions, inception wasn’t about a character flaw. Kill Bill Vol. 1 wasn’t about the flaws of “The Bride.” She was merely thrown into a situation where he was left for dead, and went on a journey of revenge for those who attempted to murder her.
@@charlesdodson7521 Dude, what movies do you watch? In Inception Cobb is constantly putting his own inner demons and his past in the line during the jobs and get his team hurt and killed by it. In Kill Bill The Bride is naive enough to think that she can escape a life of violence and get his friends killed by her actions, that flaw starts a story about doing what she had to been done long time ago.
Very informative, very informative indeed.
I don't want to sound bad or bitter, but everyone who's read at least one screenwriting book knows about flaws and how essential it is for the story world and circumstances to challenge that flaw and making the character overcome it. Which makes me think that it can't be 99%.
John Truby's Anatomy of Story specifically uses Tootsie as an example (among others), which makes this feel like she's just reciting this (which obviously might just be because Tootsie is a good example).
@@chrisd7733 Sure, I would do that. I just hate the titling of the video and how much she stretches out her argument. I was waiting for her to say something I didn't know (that sounded very pretentious), but couldn't know that she wouldn't get there. And the title implies that this is worth watching for everyone, as it'd be arrogant to believe that you don't fall into the 99%.
I agree with you. 99% is ridiculous
She's brilliant! I've taken her course physically at least four times; as many of her alumni who return to craft stories. And she is speaking of the great timeless stories. A film made doesn't mean it's great. Most great stories possess the things she teaches.
99% of this interview, was a waste of my time. And I only watched half of it...
This was insightful and gave me a lot to think about. I wonder if this is because when most people write, they see their story as a vehicle to get to their moral and the protagonist becomes more of an avatar for themselves. In order to avoid this mistake, your protagonist has to start off as the antagonist of your moral, you literally have to start your story making a case against what you ultimately believe.
If that’s the case, almost none of the horror and thriller movies are stories. They’re just people thrown into situations. Bad fate as she calls it.
If the character can be replaced, this makes the character generic rather than a story turning into a situation.
And please tell me one story where there’s no situation. The things she said just doesn’t make any sense to me.
To me anything that has a beginning a middle and an end is a story, regardless who’s in it or if they have flaws or what not.
Do you have an example of almost perfect horror or thriller movie that people have thrown into situation? Name it please then you will come to realize they have contribute to the problem
Stories are usually about a character overcoming a flaw [or fail to] (and not about the external goal). In seeing the protagonist overcome a flaw [or fail], the audience experiences catharsis.
If the flaw isn't tested throughout the story, it will often feel episodic, and even repetitive, because the audience can't see how events relate to one another. They should relate to the internal goal the character has.
If the story doesn't test the flaw of the character, it isn't unique to them, and therefore feels generic. If the protagonist isn't responsible in some way for their situation (as a result of a flaw), it seems like they are just a helpless victim. If their own actions/choices are not making the situation worse how would they be capable of overcoming the situation in the climax?
In many ways, what she's saying is similar to Truby in "Anatomy of Story" and Michael Hauge.
@@Ruylopez778 Geez I don't know about that, writing a story about the Holocaust (The Pianist for example) and says that the main characters (say a Jewish person) is somehow responsible for their situation is kinda an irresponsible move
@@somewherelongago "If the protagonist isn't responsible in some way for their situation (as a result of a flaw), it seems like they are just a helpless victim. If their own actions/choices are not making the situation worse how would they be capable of overcoming the situation in the climax?"
*IN SOME WAY..... AS A RESULT OF A FLAW*
*Being Jewish isn't a flaw*. And a character can't "overcome" the Holocaust. They overcome the obstacles, and themselves internally, in the story.
Their own actions, as a result of their flaw, can still sometimes create obstacles for them. That is what they are responsible for.
If the obstacles happen at random like bad luck it is pointless, since they don't have the means to learn anything. Isn't that obvious from the video?
What you're implying I'm saying is ridiculous. And there aren't "stories about the Holocaust".
There are stories about characters reacting to events during/before/after the Holocaust.
If I character is stubborn, and as a result they are captured by Nazis, the flaw results in the capture. It doesn't make them responsible for the Holocaust. They might come to discover they are stubborn and avoid a similar mistake in future. They can't undo the Holocaust by being less stubborn.
Why did you utterly misunderstand this?
RuyLopezQB6 I'm sorry if I have misunderstood you in any way to crank a bad joke, but what was I originally meant to say (until I turn into a bad joke instead) is that in social commentary films, especially those which are meant to criticize a system, if a character('s action) is portrayed to be at fault for their situation and whose flaws are meant to overcome so as to avoid similar mistakes, then the story could potentially come across as inconsiderate to its subjects by downplaying the weight of history.
I'm not trying to say that you can't be a critique of society and have flawed character, but just that there are the wrong kinds of flaws and the wrong kind of emphasis on such flaws that you can give to your historical "victim" characters, especially if it's the system you are trying to criticize.
I know I'm talking in circles a lot, so here is an example: If you're trying to write a story about the Holocaust (or Jewish people reacting to the Holocaust), criticizing the crimes of the Nazis, but then you go on to make your Jewish protagonist flaw's being that his/her stubbornness, and only if he/she can get over his/her stubbornness he/she could avoid the mistake of being caught by the Nazis, your audience might be getting the wrong idea that you're downplaying the fact that "Hey, maybe such crimes against humanity shouldn't be committed" (it's kinda like writing a story about Tiananmen and saying that if you hadn't protest maybe you would have lived)
I kinda think that's one of the reasons why there are fewer films that are directly about the Jewish people in the concentration camps and often have to rely on an outsider character. Because the guide to film storytelling and what is considered respectful to the historical subject don't often mesh
But then I again, I don't really believe that the other approach to a character is wrong (or uninteresting)
I wonder if you have seen the movie Cathy Come Home by Ken Loach, it's rather interesting because the protagonist is written to be exactly like the "helpless victim" (if anything her flaws are framed to be normal), but the film ultimately benefits from the episodic, almost repetitive structure that follows because it further denotes the characters lack of control. And while the protagonist doesn't feel unique, I would argue that it's because she isn't supposed to, she's supposed to represent "the everywoman" who have fallen victim to the system, it's not the character who is unique, it's the situation that is unique.
I could be reading this wrong, however, so I want to ask your opinion on this first
I apologize again for the bad joke, I didn't try to come off as a jerk (though it does look like it) and I hope this long comment provides some context to that comment to what I meant when I wrote that joke. Everything I say here could be wrong thou (since I haven't read John Truby's books so I might misunderstand you again), so please explain if I'm missing anything
EDIT: I have NOT read John Truby's book
Everything from 11:00 onwards is pure gold
Watching videos when we could be writing ......ummm
Don't call me out like that.
Excellent definition of story. Expose the protagonists flaw, make them face it and change.
Isnt that what a story is when its broken down? A bunch of situations?
Two words. Forrest Gump. A movie about an endearing character in a bunch of situations
There's a great video about paddington bear by lessons from the screenplay that highlights how some movies with flat arcs work because it's everyone around the protagonist who changes and the situations highlight the protagonist's defiant unchanging noble character trait.
This is so helpful ! Thanks.
Id like to hear someone talk about 'The Law of Attraction' in storytelling. Is that something you could ask your guests some time?
I notice that if a character has suppressed anger problems then a lot of angry people appear and cause them problems in their outer world... but when they deal with and embrace their anger... the angry people go away. Same with criticism - a person suppresses their inner critic and then a whole bunch of critics show up in their external world. Id like to know what your guests have to say about this.
Hmm, that sounds like it would be writing a message within a story. To me "Law of Attraction" is a theory and a belief, not a writing tactic. It's kind of like writing about karma or reincarnation. These are beliefs, not storytelling strategies.
@@cameronmack1863 Well... It is definitely used by the top screenwriters / storytellers / novelists... so whether you believe it exists or should be used or not doesnt negate the fact that it is a technique widely used and is obviously highly effective. Thats why people use it and it rings true to reality. Our perceptions are distorted by our psychological states.
Another way to frame that might be "if it smells like shit everywhere you go, check your own shoe". Our mindset both informs how we act in the world and how we perceive others actions. Those two things each have an effect on the other, in a cycle and can over time change how one would act. It allows us to rationalise a behaviour one day that we might not on another day. Nothing's wooey about the law of attraction. Worth thinking about when writing, for sure.
Thanks!
Great analysis of a problem -- not only must the protagonist choose the situation, exposing themselves to the dangers, but also the situation must expose a flaw in the protagonist.
This is helpful for me right now as I'm honing a character to make them more fully 3-D in their motivations.
Reverse engineer a current film that is out. Tootsie 1982
Wow, grateful for this advice. Thank you!
The reference to Tootsie was good.
Interesting point on the protagonist not being replaceable to know if our story is solid and unique
What about the movie "After Hours?" That's a situation where bad things just keep happening to the protagonist. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I can't quite remember what the guy's flaws are, haha.
You'll always find exceptions to the "rules", especially in Indie or artsy type films. Even in Forrest Gump - a hugely successful big "studio" film - it could be argued that Forrest doesn't have a central flaw that he overcomes; Forrest stays essentially the same throughout the whole movie. However, he is the catalyst for change to the other characters (Jenny, Lt. Dan). Bottom line, once you've learned the basic rules, it's all the more easier to break those rules effectively for your own purposes.
@@Finians_Mancave I don't think it's breaking the rules, it's just an example of a Flat Arc, kind of like the Paddington movies.
She’s saying it’s character driven. Get in to the character. Tell their story. Use their inner life. A thing might happen to a character but what follows is driven by the character. A character will cause things to happen too. Like the scorpion and frog: what they it’s in their character. the story is how the character develops, changes, refined in the fire of experience
This is actually so stupid 😂 I can't stop cringing anf laughing! Omg
She goes about the example of Tootsie... let me get this straight:
1) She says she could tweak it by telling fat tootsie's co-star, he is gay. Still 'almost works'
2) we'll make Julie's father gay, so 'still working the same'
3) The key (according to her) is the flaw of Michael Dorsey, which is (drum roll) lack of respect for women!!!! - No way to tweak that to make the story still work???? Really???? Since he is not pretending to be a woman but a fat man, instead of a lack of respect for women, he has a lack of respect for fat people! To me that makes the story pretty much 'still work the same'! 🤷♂️
I think I just dismantled her story/ situation dilemma. You're welcome! (Excuse my arrogance here but this video is pretending that its audience is ignorant and that's insulting!)
Not really. Relax Bro. I can't excuse you. It may be obvious to you, but that doesn't mean it isn't relevant and worth reinforcing.
Re: your argument, He's not attracted to fat men or hitting on them at the start of the movie is he?
Playing with gender stereotypes for a chauvinist protagonist has much more potential than stereotypes about people being overweight, since there are more inherent differences between genders compared to a man and an overweight man. Does that make sense?
And regardless, for an audience to care about a story, there needs to be catharsis. And to have catharsis the protagonist has to either overcome a flaw or fail to overcome it. And to have that be meaningful we need to have that flaw causing them harm in some way - which is exactly the same thing Truby says.
What she's saying is that there needs to be connection. If we just make up arbitrary flaws or scenes that we like the idea of, it won't work.
I would think that would be obvious.
I think the only thing to pick apart is her use of "99%".
I always see comments like this, talking about how nobody knows anything about screenwriting, and it's a con. It's kind of boring to be honest - and always those comments end by suggesting everyone should be grateful to them for lifting the veil of deceit.
RuyLopezQB6 1) I absolutely respect that you deem whatever she has to say as relevant. I have no problem with that at all. Different strokes for different folks. To me she delivers nothing new because I've read tons of screenswriting books from, aristotle over vogler, to truby, Seger and McKee to name a few. I just find it very deceiving to take the same and put it in different words. It's just not very original or compelling.
2) you claim: "Playing with gender stereotypes for a chauvinist protagonist has much more potential than stereotypes about people being overweight since there are more inherent differences between genders compared to a man and an overweight man"
I think you are very wrong about that. There are endless conflicting potential in a regular man being disrespectful with overweight people. Just imagine the possibilities: body shaming, the amounts of overweight people surrounding that character, he either has to work with or depends on or his love interest has overweight parents or an overweight brother, so she rejects him because he is disrespectful to them... on and on. So the conflict in that is huge and if you're a good writer you actually can make that as big as the chauvinist vs. women conflict (maybe even bigger). I've just thought about it half a minute and can come up with tons of conflict. So, to answer your question: no, that argument doesn't make sense to me.
3) your third point regarding catharsis and connection. I can't really understand what you are reacting to by that, since I don't adress that in my comment. As I mentioned, I've read many of the screenplay how to books and what you're touching on is what many describe as the inner journey. The character has to learn and grow inside. In Fat Tootsie he would have to learn, that the weight doesn't tell anything about people through some hurtful experiences. The flaw always has to be relevant on an emotional level. Again there's NOTHING new to what she says.
4) and to get your last assumption straight: I never said, that all these people know nothing about screenwriting! It's the opposite, they're all legit. But even though their ideas and formulads apply, that doesn't determine whether a screenplay or a movie is going to be great. The best example for that is the fact, that they have never written a screenplay that has become a great movie by themselves. That's a simple fact. You can't argue with that. In conclusion: you can apply and follow all their rules and formulas and still write a bad screenplay. It's not a quality warrantor.
@@relaxbro5605 1. Nope. You said you were laughing and cringing at how stupid it is. You claimed to have "dismantled" her dilemma.
2. Well for some reason you skipped the fact that Tootsie has a central character who is pursuing that which he has to portray. As I said, he doesn't begin the movie hitting on overweight men. So the story doesn't 'work the same' as you put it. Yes it would force him to look at overweight men in a different way, but he's heterosexual, so it has no impact on his relationships. In fact in your comment you pretty much proved her point because you apparently couldn't see why it wouldn't work, or were determined to argue as such.
You're saying that two men of different sizes are more different in society than two genders? I think you're saying that just to disagree with me. There's definitely an important conversation to be had about weight in modern society, no doubt.
3. I'm pointing out that her "system" has the same fundamentals as all the other storytellers, and since you clearly agree, I don't see what is "laughable" about it.
4. You said the video assumed the audience was ignorant.
What does writing a great screenplay prove? I see the same comment over and over again. If she wrote an amazing screenplay and it got optioned but never made, does that prove anything? If she is credited with a great screenplay but it was actually edited (uncredited) by another writer does that prove anything? If she writes one great screenplay and the rest are horrible does that prove anything?
If she wrote a script and the final draft got ruined by producer notes does that prove anything?
Plenty of artists of all professions can't articulate how they do what they do. Think of sports; you don't need to be a great player to be a great coach.
5. You're also forgetting, as everyone does that makes comments like yours, that the video is intended for a wide audience of all different levels of experience and ability. So to assume it talks down to the audience is subjective.
6. I don't think these "gurus" ever claim they invented storytelling. They are offering guidance. They're explaining what works and why, in their own words. They don't guarantee anything except tools and understanding of the craft.
RuyLopezQB6 1) and I'm still cringing and laughing because her argumentative line is so crooked. She can fix everything, except if the point she wants to prove her approach with, when following the fixing attempts to the previous inconsistencies is as much applicable to the inconsitency she claims can not be fixed. That's what's laughable. I gave a fix that alines her previous fixes.
2) It's kind of hard for me to understand or react everything you're going about here. It's kind of mixed up and includes to many different points to understand what your key argument is here. While it's party not really clear to me on what you base some of your assumptions of what I've said. I will try anyway: I don't know what fact I skipped? It works the same if you just keep making the tweaks she makes to fix the story. That's my whole point. She isn't consistent in here approach of you can fix this, you can't fix that. I'm not saying that two men of different sizes are more different in society than two genders... when did I say that?! I'm saying that there can be as much conflict to come up with in that story.
3) I think I've adressed what I find laughable about it (but I admit humour is subjective).
4) Well, to me that proves everything. And I think I'm not alone on that. If you're gonna teach me how to fly, you better show me some credentials that you're an actual successful pilot who has been flying. And the coach/sport reference is not applicable here. Coaches don't teach players how to play. Coaches manage tactics and teams. They learn that. The work of a player has nothing to do with the one of a coach. You can be a great player without knowing anything about tactics! Can you write a screenplay without knowing anything about sreenwriting?
5) I agree, it's subjective. I respect your opinion. Please respect mine ;-)
6) They're are mostly convinced, that things have to be done this or that way. If you don't perceive it like that, perfect. Good for you.
@@relaxbro5605 1. Your argument that you can pick apart her example doesn't make sense. It's also rather pedantic, because you can clearly see her point about how important the flaw is to the story.
"To me she delivers nothing new because I've read tons of screenwriting books from, aristotle over vogler, to truby, Seger and McKee to name a few."
2. Again, I think you can understand her point that, even when small tweaks are made, the story still doesn't work. If we keep making tweaks over and over then obviously we end up with a different story entirely.
"The key (according to her) is the flaw of Michael Dorsey, which is (drum roll) lack of respect for women!!!! - No way to tweak that to make the story still work???? Really???? Since he is not pretending to be a woman but a fat man, instead of a lack of respect for women, he has a lack of respect for fat people! To me that makes the story pretty much 'still work the same'! 🤷♂️"
This is your point which "dismantled" her example?
"Re: your argument, He's not attracted to fat men or hitting on them at the start of the movie is he?"
Your reply starts talking about body shaming and conflict.
If the protagonist doesn't have an unhealthy attitude to women, then his actions at the start and relationship with his co-star don't have the same weight. Which is her point, isn't it? I can only presume you are deliberately pretending to not understand her point.
"you claim: "Playing with gender stereotypes for a chauvinist protagonist has much more potential than stereotypes about people being overweight since there are more inherent differences between genders compared to a man and an overweight man"
I think you are very wrong about that."
3. Just makes you come across as very negative and patronising.
4. "Well, to me that proves everything. And I think I'm not alone on that."
Yes, and there are these comments on every video. Why did you bother to watch it when you're such an expert? So that you could criticise her? And those people that criticise never seem to add any of their insight. You could have made a very motivating comment instead, to the audience you feel are being insulted.
"If you're gonna teach me how to fly, you better show me some credentials that you're an actual successful pilot who has been flying." How do you quantify "successful"?
Flying is a skill learned by repetition, plus a lot of studying about air pressure, weather etc. Some pilots are better than others. I wouldn't say it's the same as writing though.
"And the coach/sport reference is not applicable here. Coaches don't teach players how to play. Coaches manage tactics and teams. They learn that. The work of a player has nothing to do with the one of a coach. You can be a great player without knowing anything about tactics! ?"
Agreed. Sportsmen and women have their own natural talent. And a coach can guide their instincts and shape their mindset, based on what has worked (in their experience) in the past for other players. A coach can't give them talent where it isn't. And a coach doesn't need talent to understand mindset and instincts.
An amazing screenwriter can't make me one. They can't teach me to use my intuition and imagination as they do. That would just make me a poor copy of them, anyway. So it must be my own intuition and imagination that makes me great or not. Isn't that true?
So the only way to enhance my own ability is through craft, is it not?
And if craft can be learned and taught, it can be learned and taught by anyone, can it not?
"Can you write a screenplay without knowing anything about screenwriting?"
Yes. And it would probably suck. Because that person wouldn't know much about story beyond what they have learned from consuming them. How did [insert your choice] become a screenwriting legend then? Were they personally instructed by another legend?
Personally, I think what makes those people as good as they are is their own unique personality and imagination based on their own experiences. Somewhere along the way they picked up what worked or didn't, perhaps from a book on craft, or a conversation. But certainly they needed craft in order to be successful, and they needed their own talent most of all.
5. What do you want me to respect? You want me to respect the fact that you ridicule a video because it isn't what you perceive people would want - but then you've read tons of books anyway, so why did you watch it? To see how bad it was?
6. Anyone giving advice has to give it with conviction don't they? Otherwise we will look for someone who does. You've already said all their points are the same anyway, so what harm does it do?
7. Let me get this clear: Only a very respected screenwriter is valid in giving instruction on how to do it, and they must not repeat what we've already heard or be in consensus. Is that what the industry needs?
8. Try asking yourself this question; why isn't the market flooded with screenwriting books by screenwriters who've written many amazing screenplays? What's the answer?
This ABSOLUTELY is helping me right now 1000% with creating the protagonist of my latest pilot script. THANK YOU Jill Chamberlain! ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Story and situation seem more like need vs want.
Not exactly. The story is the change from want to need.
I've only written a couple shorts but I always begin my outlining with the thought of "what do I really want to say with this - what's my message?" and develop from there. I'm 100% amature and not a professional, but I've felt that having something to say helps tell the story more clearly and gives the piece substance.
I get a feeling of "those who can´t, teach" with this woman... Looking at her IMDB she´s written and directed two shorts and nothing more, sure she could be the worlds greatest ghostwriter or scriptdoctor but i doubt it.
But who am i, a nobody but this is my feeling and opinion.
i agree. i stopped after she said that life is episodic and a story is causality. what a backward brain.
@@henrijs1733 I'm not sure you're interpreting "episodic" properly. My interpretation is that it means "something happens, then something happens, then something else happens" whereas causality is "something happens, which causes something to happen, which causes something else to happen."
A simple example of what I mean on a grand scale regarding a series:
Causality: Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Game of Thrones
Episodic: Family Guy, Seinfeld, The Simpsons
They both cover critically acclaimed series which are entertaining and loved by millions; but when writing a movie you don't generally want to structure it like a sitcom. You can, but it's the much more difficult and likely a less rewarding route to take. On a microscopic scale there are arcs to be found in each episode of the "episodic" series but those arcs don't influence anything beyond the enclosed story they're contained and do not push a broader narrative any further. If a season of The Simpsons was contrasted with a season of Breaking Bad, which one would be more impactful as a narrative? Breaking Bad would.
I'm not saying The Simpsons is worse off for it, these shows are designed the way they are for a purpose, but if you want a strong narrative that people find to be gripping and entertaining you need to be able to differentiate between these two things and know how to capitalize on them.
That's how I understand it anyway, and I'm not sure how you think she's wrong because this makes perfect sense to mostly everyone else in the comment section.
@@henrijs1733 I mean, that's not wrong.